Speedy independence poses risks

Since the US-led coalition took control of Iraq, one of its biggest enemies has been time. The agreement reached at the weekend to hasten the handover of sovereignty to Iraqis has the advantage of speed - but whether democratic efforts will prevail remains in doubt.

The new approach holds huge risks for the US because democracy has only shallow roots in Iraq and there are numerous obstacles at each step of the process, not least of all the destabilising violence that now seems to be touching nearly every corner of the country.

If it fails, the Bush Administration's experiment of exporting democracy to the Middle East could look like a benighted policy on the eve of the 2004 presidential election. It could also leave the Iraqi people demoralised. But if Iraqis embrace the moment and take charge of their future, then the plan could mark the advent of a new era.

For the Bush Administration, there were few other choices to get the stalled reconstruction effort going, especially in light of the deteriorating security situation.

The Administration has been faced with the growing scepticism of Iraqis over the intentions of the US.

At the very least, the developments on Saturday looked likely to give Iraqis faith that the US presence has a real end date. Several members of the Iraq Governing Council said they also believed that the imminent prospect of an Iraqi state would give ordinary Iraqis a sense of ownership and a stake in the future - and that, in turn, would give them the wherewithal to stand up to the anti-American guerillas.

"I hope that these steps will improve the security situation," said Adnan Pachachi, a member of the Governing Council.

A senior Bush Administration official said that one goal of the agreement was to increase Iraqis' sense of empowerment.

"The more participation that we can get at the grassroots level, the more legitimacy it will be perceived as having in the short term and the long term," the official said.

But the critical factor in the Administration's change in course perhaps had more to do with timing than with concerns about democratic participation.

The US faced unrealistic expectations over the extent to which the Iraqis' daily life would be changed after Saddam's departure. When aspects of their lives worsened, people felt cheated and angry, and some areas became fertile ground for the armed insurgency.

Since August, when the attacks dramatically increased and the suicide car bombings began, the Administration has been searching for a way to stem its losses both in troops killed and in public credibility.

The urgency of reversing course became clear about 10 days ago when the Governing Council went to civilian administrator Paul Bremer and told him there was no way to write a constitution without first holding a direct election for the drafters - a demand particularly pushed by Shiite religious leaders.